My biggest gripe is the modern safety razor. I finally went retro this year and got a double edge safety razor (made in India on old machines imported from elsewhere) and am using German razor blades.
I've been using a classic double edge razor for years. My motivation was avoiding irritation from multiple blades, and I felt bad throwing away a whole disposable each week. The upfront cost was higher for the metal handle, but I found that I ended up saving a ton of money over cartridge or disposable razors.
I'm with you, Joe. I also have a large stash of incandescent bulbs hidden away from the light bulb po-lice. I refuse to let the government tell me I have to use CFL's. They are not allowed in my house. I do like LED's and have a few in my newly remodeled basement. They work great. I got them on sale, then got sticker shock when I went back to buy more. I do think they will eventually come down in price and I will probably continue to use them.
Don
I just stumbled on this thread. When do the incandescent light bulbs become illegal to sell? I need to stockpile those lights since my house is not designed for them. What I mean is my kitchen has 12 small ceiling lights and the basement has at least 32! I realize I would replace them as the incandescents burn out but I expect there will be a mix of them and cfls (or LEDs) will be noticeably different. My church recently put this to the test and replaced one large light with an LED replacement to save power and it was so noticeable they went back to the old light! I could buy CFLs or Leds and replace them all at once but I would need a bank loan to purchase them all!
Also how many people actually get rid of CFLs properly? If we take the convenient route and pitch them in our trash cans will our landfills be tainted with mercury?
I don't see it as a question of personal liberty. Nobody is saying you can't have incandescent lights in your house, any more than saying you can't own an analog TV set or analog cellphone. In the past, we've phased out DDT, PCBs, CFCs, and analog TV broadcasts, all for good reasons. As a matter of policy and national priorities, this is really no different. Certainly, as a consequence, some industries benefit while others suffer. But I see no government/industry conspiracy beyond the promotion of more rational energy usage.
I was an early adopter of CFLs, buying some of the earliest ones available and paying much too much for them. But if I want to continue to buy incandescent bulbs for certain locations that get turned on-and-off a lot - like halls, garages, and bathrooms - how is the latest legislation not a question of personal liberty?
There are many exemptions to this phase out. It applies mainly to "normal" bulbs in the 40 to 100 watt range.
I have several LED bulbs and if they last only half as long as the manufacturer claims, I will be happy. I find the color of the LED bulbs to be very acceptable.
I have one CFL that's in an enclosed fixture which is hard to access and normal bulbs in it would burn out every three months or sooner. When I bought the CFL, LED lights were not readily available. It has been in use for nearly 8 years, but when it finally goes out I'll replace it with an LED type..
No, but they are saying that I cannot buy them. As far as rationality, my I humbly suggest that perchance my epistemology is slightly different that yours. I do not see it as rational to limit one's options as to how one lives one's life. As I said before, I find the light from those horrid CFLs to be disgusting. They literally make me sick. I would love to see how the "carbon footprint" of the two technologies stacks up, not that I believe that story either. As for CFCs, there is an interesting backstory to that as well... Dupont's patent on R-12 and R-22 was running out, and they had to do something quick. So their "scientists" came up with the ozone depletion fable, and lo and behold, Dupont in a rare fit of corporate "responsibility" developed new refrigerants that supposedly do not destroy the ozone layer. Give not a thought to the fact that they could patent the new stuff, that the new refrigerants do not work nearly as well as the old, that it is poisonous, and costs ten times what the old did. The good thing for me is that it did not really effect me too much. I simply drained the cfc oil out of my old cars' compressor, replaced it with petroleum based oil, replaced the seals and charged with propane. Works like a charm. I should not had to have gone to the trouble. But the story is the same. Everyone blames the environmentalists for these silly regulations, but really, the environmentalists are often too sappy to realize that they are being played by the corporate powers that be. No one in their right mind wants to destroy the planet, lest of all me. I make the majority of my living by husbanding the land and making affordable food for people to eat. I put far more into soil conservation than I am required to by any regulation, have planted (as part of soil conservation) more trees than I daresay most greenies have, and use far less biocides on my 400 acres than most suburban homeowners do on their front lawn. I have no intention of poisoning my grandkids, my animals or myself so that there are no dandelions in my grass. Besides, my goat likes to eat them. I am simply asking that REAL science is used when discussing these issues. As long as we do not kill the flora of the top twenty feet of the worlds oceans, we will never run out of oxygen. And speaking of oceans, more Chlorine is released to the atmosphere from the worlds' oceans in a single day than all of the CFCs man has made throughout the entire industrial age.
I am not trying to start a flame war here, as I love this forum and all of the different viewpoints therein. I have no political ax to grind, as I no longer trust any politician of any party to have my best interests at heart. I will probably not ever vote again, as I feel that our electoral process is akin to the old Soviet style... where there were elections but you could only vote for the party accepted canadates. All I am saying is that today it is my turn to be de-liberated as I call it with these CFL lamps. Tomorrow it might be the proponents of said CFL lights, turn to um, get their ox gored, no pun intended.
There are many exemptions to this phase out. It applies mainly to "normal" bulbs in the 40 to 100 watt range.
I have several LED bulbs and if they last only half as long as the manufacturer claims, I will be happy. I find the color of the LED bulbs to be very acceptable.
Exaclty , get appliance bulbs .
we just installed all LED in the new part of my folks house .
If made right . LEDs can look just like Old lamps ...
Its all in the fixtures and the color of the LEDs .
...Dupont's patent on R-12 and R-22 was running out, and they had to do something quick. So their "scientists" came up with the ozone depletion fable...
I am simply asking that REAL science is used when discussing these issues.
No flames here, but I'm curious as to what qualifies as real science. For example, the "fable" is based on measurements of column ozone. http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/ is a useful summary with data sources linked. This is an ongoing NASA program with data coming from multiple spacecraft as well as balloon flights that carry sensors into the upper atmosphere to sample the air and measure ozone content directly. If this isn't real science, what would you find to be satisfactory?
It has been mandated that we use expensive LED/CFL lamps instead of filament lamps.
The stated reason for this mandate is energy saving.
These new lamps are an order of magnitude more expensive so this is a big deal even if they are supposed to last longer.
Question: Is it really so that from manufacturing to land fill these new lamps consume less energy than filament lamps?
We have reason to suspect they don't, firstly because they are so much more expensive and expense often comes from the energy required to manufacture something.
Question: Is it really so that these new lamps have an environmental impact in terms of resources used and pollution created that is the same or less than filament lamps?
We have reason to believe the have a greater impact. Mercury has already been raised as a concern here. And clearly there are simply more components and exotic materials in a CFL/LED lamp.
Perhaps "real science" can answer these questions. Perhaps what we need is not science at all but just engineers assessing the situation. Have all the consequences of such a mandate been thought through?
No flames here, but I'm curious as to what qualifies as real science. For example, the "fable" is based on measurements of column ozone. http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/ is a useful summary with data sources linked. This is an ongoing NASA program with data coming from multiple spacecraft as well as balloon flights that carry sensors into the upper atmosphere to sample the air and measure ozone content directly. If this isn't real science, what would you find to be satisfactory?
Well, first of all, many folks including myself feel that NASA stands for Never A Straight Answer. I feel that the federal government stands for corporate-ocracy, regardless of what party is in office. Republicans can appear to be as corporate-military as they want and Dems can appear to be as Socialist/Marxist as they want, but I promise you that if ADM, big pharma, big oil, big auto, big ag, and especially big finance want it, they get it. So Dupont wants more patentable revenue, lets publish bogus science and get their old products outlawed. Ok, so what if the column ozone is depleted in the Antarctic? What does that mean? How is it depleted? Are you going to trust Dupont and NASA? Do you trust George Bush, Bill Clinton, Owl Gore or Obama for the truth? I cannot speak for you, but I do not trust any of them. Why, because if the truth were in them, we would be the most free people and nation in the world. How do you know that CFCs deplete the ozone layer? Because they tell you so, and they have their 'scientists' tell you so and it is on the three old TV syndicates? Nay, I have not seen a balanced discussion on this subject. I do feel that Chlorine will destroy Ozone... if there is Ozone and moisture, I suspect that the Chlorine molecule will strip a water molecule of its hydrogen to become two HCL molecules and thus leaves a single Oxygen atom ready to party with an Ozone molecule to make two Oxygen (O2) molecules. My chemistry is rusty, but as Ozone is unstable as It is, and Oxygen likes be in a loving molecule pair, I suspect that this is what happens. As far as the "ozone hole" that everyone was so worried about twenty years ago, no one really has an answer. Some nuclear scientists claim that the high altitude testing of nukes in the sixties did it. Other Chicken Littles (in the sxties) claimed that high altitude jetliners destroyed the ozone layer. I have a hunch that between the naturally occurring Chlorine release from the oceans and the strange magnetic field related particulate radiation that occurs at the south pole, that those might be the reason for the alleged hole in the ozone. Further, in Mexico and China you can get all of the R12 and R22 that you want, and there are no man-eating ozone holes over those nations. Remember, in all things, if you want to find the real reason, i.e. the truth, follow the money. Look at Dupont's patent situation and their solution and the governmental reaction. That is just too cozy for me to think that there was any real catastrophe waiting in the wings due to the use of Freon 12 or 22.
Why am I so adamant about this? Because with every bit of legislation meant to regulate some environmental boogy-man, our standard of living goes down. No longer can your average person go to Western Auto, buy a pound of R12 for 99 cents for their car and go home to recharge their AC and be cool in the summer. Now you have to go spend several hundred dollars on a 'licensed' AC tech do it for you using products that do not cool your car anywhere near as efficiently as R-12. No longer will you be able to go to Sears and buy a pack of four 100 watt light bulbs for three and a quarter, rather you will have to spend seven or eight dollars for one harsh, RF noisy mercury bomb that if it gets shattered in your home, you have (according to the EPA) to rip out your carpet and replace it. (I have heard from our insurance broker that the insurance industry would love to be able to go into your home and do a Hg vapor test before they write a homeowner's policy. If you fail, guess what... your carpet comes out or you get no insurance.) Or, you can spend 40 dollars for an LED monstrosity that will last two years and will give folks like me a literal headache as well as the PIA headache of having to use them.
It would be nice to think that there was a truly neutral scientific community in this or any other country, but big science depends on big money and big (corporate) government, so therein will be the loyalties of big science.
No longer can your average person go to Western Auto, buy a pound of R12 for 99 cents for their car and go home to recharge their AC and be cool in the summer. Now you have to go spend several hundred dollars on a 'licensed' AC tech do it for you using products that do not cool your car anywhere near as efficiently as R-12.
My experience doing this was perfectly reasonable. I spent $30-50, got a kit with the new stuff in it, and dealt with my old car AC just fine. It had a leak, I fixed it, bought the kit and the air blows really cold. Not a worry. Does it blow as cold as the old stuff did? I don't know. Really cold is cold enough for me.
No longer will you be able to go to Sears and buy a pack of four 100 watt light bulbs for three and a quarter, rather you will have to spend seven or eight dollars for one harsh, RF noisy mercury bomb that if it gets shattered in your home, you have (according to the EPA) to rip out your carpet and replace it.
My last pack of 5 60 watt CFL bulbs was $4, and I got 100 watt (equivalent) ones in the same number for like $6. (wal-mart) And I have to tell you those higher powered CFL bulbs are bright!
This isn't to say I think it's all better. Just different, and not as much different as I often read about, that's all.
Because with every bit of legislation meant to regulate some environmental boogy-man, our standard of living goes down.
Maybe. Environments are expensive things. I don't think all of the attempts to preserve them have gone well, but I do absolutely believe in those attempts because some of them do well. Some parts of the world don't care so much. I live in one that does and it's been very interesting. The conflict between optimal cost / labor and environment has been constant, but you know what? So has the quality environment here. That's worth a lot to me frankly.
I would suggest taking a hard look at the new options. So far my experience has been favorable, other than needing to do that work.
Joe, if "real science" comes down to a matter of what someone wants to believe, then there's no such thing as real science. The science we have is not perfect. Science is done by people and sometimes they make errors that don't get caught and sometimes they have agendas, just like everyone else including you and I. Nonetheless, the peer review process is reasonably robust and honest, and if you don't hang your hat on one study but wait for consensus to emerge you are far better off with that than you are with simple guesses and supposition which are the only alternatives we have. If you can't believe measurements that NASA has made because you think NASA is a crooked organization run by crooked people, then all I can say is I appreciate your response though I adamantly disagree. If running on money always destroys trust, then nothing at all can be trusted including the two of us. Everything runs on money, including my shop and your farm and our respective homes. Lastly, from my observations the "straight" answer many seem to want is really a desire for a simple answer. Yet when the questions are complicated the answers are likely to be as well. That doesn't make them wrong.
Heater, you ask good questions. The end-to-end assessments I've seen summarized suggest that the balance is heading in the right direction. I haven't pored over the details, and I suspect you haven't either or you would be making more specific statements, but when I see agreement that is so broadly based across many nations, I'm inclined to think that the homework has been done. As for engineering, do you honestly believe that no engineers have done the work you are suggesting? That with all the emotions and money at stake that no one at any of the companies that are having their products banned has bothered to try to shoot holes in the claims? That seems unlikely. Unlike some posters here, I don't have a problem with changing. I don't have a problem with the quality of light from CFLs and in my opinion an incandescent is basically a resistive heater that produces a few lumens of rather horrible orange light that we've all had to get used to. A typical incandescent has a color temperature only about half of the sunlight our eyes work best with and also produces a lot of infrared that we can't even see but have to deal with. And you would defend such a thing from an engineering standpoint? They are cheap to buy, there's no denying that. At one level staying where we are seems cheaper, but continuing to burn more and more power requires more and more power plants to be built, and they are anything but cheap. Our local utility, in its infinitesimal wisdom, managed to destroy a perfectly good nuke plant while trying to upgrade it, and now we are going to be saddled not only with decommissioning costs but if we can't get demand down, also with finding a replacement source. The costs to produce power have to be included in those end-to-end assessments you want and if someone has done one and concluded that building more plants to run inefficient lighting is the cost-effective solution, I haven't heard about it.
Joe, if "real science" comes down to a matter of what someone wants to believe, then there's no such thing as real science. The science we have is not perfect. Science is done by people and sometimes they make errors that don't get caught and sometimes they have agendas, just like everyone else including you and I. Nonetheless, the peer review process is reasonably robust and honest, and if you don't hang your hat on one study but wait for consensus to emerge you are far better off with that than you are with simple guesses and supposition which are the only alternatives we have. If you can't believe measurements that NASA has made because you think NASA is a crooked organization run by crooked people, then all I can say is I appreciate your response though I adamantly disagree. If running on money always destroys trust, then nothing at all can be trusted including the two of us. Everything runs on money, including my shop and your farm and our respective homes. Lastly, from my observations the "straight" answer many seem to want is really a desire for a simple answer. Yet when the questions are complicated the answers are likely to be as well. That doesn't make them wrong.
Bob
You are right. Our science is far from it. Indeed, our science is horrible. I do not care what anyone believes. I do care about the fact that without the stash of incandescent lamps that I have, and without the friends that I have in China and Mexico who are willing to send me light bulbs if ever I need any, I would be forced to use what you consider to be the appropriate thing to use. Mind you, if you like CFLs then by all means use them. I would be the first to stand up for your right to use them. If you wish to inject thimerosal into your children's bodies, then please, go right ahead. I refused to allow the medical industry do that, rather I insisted upon Hg free vaccines for my kiddos. Now all but one are in very good universities and have a good future ahead of them. (The one that isn't got hooked up with a no-good, got on drugs, procreated and well the rest is history. My spouse and I are raising their kids...) Their developing nervous systems were not assaulted by Hg. Neither were they damaged by fluorides... My water comes from a deep well and I spent a good deal of money on a whole house RO system to keep the natural fluorides out of the water. They used mint flavored baking soda tooth powder that was popular when I was a kid and have no more dental problems than those kids who use fluoride toothpaste.
Are you really that concerned with power generation? If so, please go get a solar system and sell your surplus power back to the grid. Someday, I will do likewise. Those systems are expensive, but the manufacturers have gotten them to the point where they actually work, and it will lower your electric bill. I would love to have a wind turbine on my property, but the wind is not consistent here, and I do not have a spare million five to purchase one. If I went in on one with the local power coop, I would have to sign over a lot of control of my property, which I am unwilling to do. We as a nation need nuke, coal, gas, wind, solar, biomass and any other energy generation schemes available. We could sorely use a cellulosic fermentation infrastructure, but I still would not do anything with my corn stover other than throw it back to the ground from wince it came. (I cut my corn stalks eleven inches... helps soil conservation, moisture and snow retention and they actually decay faster for next spring when I drill seed).
The whole point of my philosophy is this... you do what you feel is right for you, and let me do what I feel is right for me. I will neither dictate to you what you do in deed or in belief, but give me the same courtesy. And besides, CFLs stink.
One last thing... NASA's first director was a former NAZI SS officer. AN SS OFFICER! I normally do not believe in guilt by association, but the SS was not known for their love of the truth nor their love of humanity. Need I say more?
I've been using a classic double edge razor for years. My motivation was avoiding irritation from multiple blades, and I felt bad throwing away a whole disposable each week. The upfront cost was higher for the metal handle, but I found that I ended up saving a ton of money over cartridge or disposable razors.
I also gave up on shaving cream and just use the hair shampoo as a shaving soap. Between the two, the cost is phenominally less. I am just imagining at some point, the changeover to a new light bulb is going to require replacement with a complete new set of light fixtures for all buildings. Therein lies the greedy bonanza for electricians and manufacturers.
The simple fact is that the more I observe business in action compared to economics in theory, I feel we are just trending toward more cost for less value content with synthetic crisises driving changeovers.
I did say in my opening post "4) I don't want to get into politics".
All I wanted was some pointers to data regarding total lifetime energy consumption and environmental impact of LEDs/CFLs vs filament lamps.
Plus, well, just a sad good bye to the filament, aka heater.
If we can't discuss the humble light bulb without getting into a serious political debate we might as well pull he plug on this thread now.
All of life is politics. Humans are social animals that only survive by cooperating and working together, that is all politics and always has been.
What distresses me is that it seems to be impossible to discuss any such topic without getting in to a partisan mud slinging. Democrat vs Republican, socialist vs conservative, communist vs capitalist. Before you know it it's all devolved into name calling and Goodwin's Law is invoked with the mention of Hitler and Nazzis. Great job guys. Not.
Sure libertarians want their freedom to use whatever devices they like and consume whatever resources they can afford. Scratch "libertarians" we all want such freedoms. On the other hand if your activity is causing harm to others, creating pollution or wasting resources then society want's the freedom to stop you. Quite rightly so.
It's all about a balance between the freedom of the individual and the well being of the rest of society.
We as engineers, scientists or just technically savvy hobbyists should be able to discuss these issues from a technical, measurable perspective not knee jerk political preferences. We should be concerned with facts and figures as best we can ascertain them. There is a reality in this huge and complex world that we have a responsibility to tease out and show to society.
At the end of the day reality wins, like it or not, no matter what your politics are.
Perhaps it's hopeless, perhaps I'm expecting too much.
The fact that the afore mentioned engineers, scientists or just technically savvy hobbyists cannot discuss these issues on their technical forums in a rational way is a great loss I believe.
I did say in my opening post "4) I don't want to get into politics".
All I wanted was some pointers to data regarding total lifetime energy consumption and environmental impact of LEDs/CFLs vs filament lamps.
Plus, well, just a sad good bye to the filament, aka heater.
If we can't discuss the humble light bulb without getting into a serious political debate we might as well pull he plug on this thread now.
Well, a dear friend has a niece that was employed until last year by Taiwan's largest LED replacement bulb maker. Her niece quit a marketing job there as the return rate for early failure was trending at about 90%. Hopefully someone has gotten further along in development. The bulbs are expensive and claim considerable longer life than the usual incadescent.
I can't get really excited about a DC world when transformers are so handy at changing AC voltage, have better efficiency, and provide a nice isolation from serious shock hazard.
I am sorry if I offended anyone with my posts. I said somewhere above that everyone is entitled to their opinions and that is what makes this forum great. I meant no harm or ill will to anybody.
Joe, I think you have a lot of feelings over this and personally, I had no trouble reading them. Sometimes it's kind of good to get it out there. Maybe you can get to a place where you feel better about it all.
Heater has the right approach. Let's talk about options and what they mean.
The end of the heater... like I mentioned earlier, I am not too worried over it. I do think some of the problem points mentioned may warrant exemptions. If markets really do continue to favor the "heaters", we may well see innovators do that anyway, despite the ban on the classic design. That opportunity may exist, or it may fade as most people really don't care as much as we may think and the new options are rapidly adopted.
Look at the Windows 8 mess. That's a forced deal if I ever saw one. The vast majority aren't adopting well enough to see the push succeed. Options are being considered now that better align with what people want and need to do.
In the case of the bulbs, we've got law in there regulating the market. In the case of Win 8, we've got a monopoly player attempting to regulate the market. In both cases we may well see pretty great options arise out of the attempts. That is my hope.
As for politics, Heater has it right there too. Everything is political. The key is to avoid the usual partisan mess and frame the politics in terms of technical realities. A discussion on tech and it's environmental impact is laced with politics. However, that same discussion can educate us as to where the costs, risks, technology and potential solutions are too. Which, in turn, impacts the politics by promoting reality and discouraging rhetoric and self-interest. Lots of ways to get at the nature of things without getting personal over it, IMHO.
Oh, here's a funny memory this discussion triggered.
My grandfather had stocked up on carbon cyanide crystals for killing ants. Where he lived in Denver there were way too many ants. When I was growing up, I would marvel at the huge ant-hills that would form in his back yard. One of those was tolerated for years over in the corner. I don't know why, but it was. The others were not tolerated at all, and Grandpaw had the perfect solution1
He would get a few cans of this stuff out, and pour concentric circles around the hill, starting a few feet away, couple inches apart and continue until he filled the entrance to the hill with them, finally placing something like an apple over the hole. Of course, the ants would call for an all hands on deck to clear that apple, and they would all die due to the crystals. All in all, the whole event would take a few days.
Then they were declared a very significant health risk. He ranted on this for weeks! Funny thing too, he said that properly handled the stuff was no worry. Now I watched him sweep up the ants, crystals, etc.. and deposit those into the garbage can and away it went.
Many years later, when we went to move them from Denver to Oregon, I found the stash of all stashes. Wish I had taken a photo. Turns out, he bought a more or less lifetime supply! Before the new home owners moved in, I used them one last time to get rid of the tolerated ant-hill, and they were still quite potent. Took two days, same method, same results. The warning on the can? Do not eat and do not store inside, or something to that effect. I used gloves, and the room where he had this stuff was in the basement, along with a pile of other nasty chemicals from the 30's to the 60's. Real scary stuff he stashed. Probably that room is toxic still, and you just know it had lead paint too.
We called to figure out how to dispose of the stash. I only used a couple of cans out of so many I can't remember. The guy on the phone was like, "You have HOW MUCH of WHAT???", "Yeah, he stashed 'em", "We will be right over!" and a team took them away shaking their heads...
Seems those things were dangerous and when wet, the bad chemicals would leech into the ground, etc... not good. Of course, Grandpaw would moan over those "New Fangled" chemicals and how they do this and that...
Not sure what the moral of the story is. Well, one is that change can be hard. Another is there are trade-offs. Still another is progress sometimes cannot be seen for what it is, and it sometimes isn't a move forward, just somewhere else...
I suspect the so-called information age creates as many problems though compelling fear as it resolves via enlightened sharing of factual information. It is really challenging to not get caught up in all the things that one might perceive as newly discovered hazards or pressing 'save the 'xxx'' agendas.
I just think the market place should drive the change over to better light devices rather than government mandates that are likely lobbied by special interests. I really can't see why I have to order a razor and razor blades from outside Taiwan as the current stuff is neither as good for shaving or good for the environment, and cost a bundle more to use.
There are obvious forces in play that decide what a regional market can and should have.. without concern for the enduser wanting to participate in what is really the best choice.
Being accosted on some many fronts about so many things that I can no longer use is getting a bit annoying.
Recycling was supposed to benefit the environment, but as near as I can tell the automotive industry has happily made it the mechanism to remove 2nd hand parts from salvage and to press people to buy new cars sooner. Less service jobs for mechanics keeping older cars on the road.. and so forth.
Supermarkets are supposed to be more cost effective for groceries, but meat and fish were fresher and safer when purchased from a butcher. Now items are mass processed, frozen and set out under plastic wrap so that one cannot easily tell how fresh (except for the date stamp).
People are less and less in a position to sort out things and decide for themselves. We just read the news and hope someone has gotten things right this time.
I have doubts.. Butchers used to grind an order of hamburger right in front of you as that was the safest way to assure freshness. The grinder was broken down and cleaned every day. The bacteria count goes way up when you mince meat as tons of air are introduced into the mix. Leave in in plastic wrap in a cold case is just not as good a solution. This is just one example of 'modern progress'.
Comments
I've been using a classic double edge razor for years. My motivation was avoiding irritation from multiple blades, and I felt bad throwing away a whole disposable each week. The upfront cost was higher for the metal handle, but I found that I ended up saving a ton of money over cartridge or disposable razors.
Don
Also how many people actually get rid of CFLs properly? If we take the convenient route and pitch them in our trash cans will our landfills be tainted with mercury?
I believe January 1st, 2014.
-MattG
-Phil
Well, that's one view.
I was an early adopter of CFLs, buying some of the earliest ones available and paying much too much for them. But if I want to continue to buy incandescent bulbs for certain locations that get turned on-and-off a lot - like halls, garages, and bathrooms - how is the latest legislation not a question of personal liberty?
I have several LED bulbs and if they last only half as long as the manufacturer claims, I will be happy. I find the color of the LED bulbs to be very acceptable.
I have one CFL that's in an enclosed fixture which is hard to access and normal bulbs in it would burn out every three months or sooner. When I bought the CFL, LED lights were not readily available. It has been in use for nearly 8 years, but when it finally goes out I'll replace it with an LED type..
I am not trying to start a flame war here, as I love this forum and all of the different viewpoints therein. I have no political ax to grind, as I no longer trust any politician of any party to have my best interests at heart. I will probably not ever vote again, as I feel that our electoral process is akin to the old Soviet style... where there were elections but you could only vote for the party accepted canadates. All I am saying is that today it is my turn to be de-liberated as I call it with these CFL lamps. Tomorrow it might be the proponents of said CFL lights, turn to um, get their ox gored, no pun intended.
Best,
Joe
Exaclty , get appliance bulbs .
we just installed all LED in the new part of my folks house .
If made right . LEDs can look just like Old lamps ...
Its all in the fixtures and the color of the LEDs .
No flames here, but I'm curious as to what qualifies as real science. For example, the "fable" is based on measurements of column ozone. http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/ is a useful summary with data sources linked. This is an ongoing NASA program with data coming from multiple spacecraft as well as balloon flights that carry sensors into the upper atmosphere to sample the air and measure ozone content directly. If this isn't real science, what would you find to be satisfactory?
It has been mandated that we use expensive LED/CFL lamps instead of filament lamps.
The stated reason for this mandate is energy saving.
These new lamps are an order of magnitude more expensive so this is a big deal even if they are supposed to last longer.
Question: Is it really so that from manufacturing to land fill these new lamps consume less energy than filament lamps?
We have reason to suspect they don't, firstly because they are so much more expensive and expense often comes from the energy required to manufacture something.
Question: Is it really so that these new lamps have an environmental impact in terms of resources used and pollution created that is the same or less than filament lamps?
We have reason to believe the have a greater impact. Mercury has already been raised as a concern here. And clearly there are simply more components and exotic materials in a CFL/LED lamp.
Perhaps "real science" can answer these questions. Perhaps what we need is not science at all but just engineers assessing the situation. Have all the consequences of such a mandate been thought through?
Well, first of all, many folks including myself feel that NASA stands for Never A Straight Answer. I feel that the federal government stands for corporate-ocracy, regardless of what party is in office. Republicans can appear to be as corporate-military as they want and Dems can appear to be as Socialist/Marxist as they want, but I promise you that if ADM, big pharma, big oil, big auto, big ag, and especially big finance want it, they get it. So Dupont wants more patentable revenue, lets publish bogus science and get their old products outlawed. Ok, so what if the column ozone is depleted in the Antarctic? What does that mean? How is it depleted? Are you going to trust Dupont and NASA? Do you trust George Bush, Bill Clinton, Owl Gore or Obama for the truth? I cannot speak for you, but I do not trust any of them. Why, because if the truth were in them, we would be the most free people and nation in the world. How do you know that CFCs deplete the ozone layer? Because they tell you so, and they have their 'scientists' tell you so and it is on the three old TV syndicates? Nay, I have not seen a balanced discussion on this subject. I do feel that Chlorine will destroy Ozone... if there is Ozone and moisture, I suspect that the Chlorine molecule will strip a water molecule of its hydrogen to become two HCL molecules and thus leaves a single Oxygen atom ready to party with an Ozone molecule to make two Oxygen (O2) molecules. My chemistry is rusty, but as Ozone is unstable as It is, and Oxygen likes be in a loving molecule pair, I suspect that this is what happens. As far as the "ozone hole" that everyone was so worried about twenty years ago, no one really has an answer. Some nuclear scientists claim that the high altitude testing of nukes in the sixties did it. Other Chicken Littles (in the sxties) claimed that high altitude jetliners destroyed the ozone layer. I have a hunch that between the naturally occurring Chlorine release from the oceans and the strange magnetic field related particulate radiation that occurs at the south pole, that those might be the reason for the alleged hole in the ozone. Further, in Mexico and China you can get all of the R12 and R22 that you want, and there are no man-eating ozone holes over those nations. Remember, in all things, if you want to find the real reason, i.e. the truth, follow the money. Look at Dupont's patent situation and their solution and the governmental reaction. That is just too cozy for me to think that there was any real catastrophe waiting in the wings due to the use of Freon 12 or 22.
Why am I so adamant about this? Because with every bit of legislation meant to regulate some environmental boogy-man, our standard of living goes down. No longer can your average person go to Western Auto, buy a pound of R12 for 99 cents for their car and go home to recharge their AC and be cool in the summer. Now you have to go spend several hundred dollars on a 'licensed' AC tech do it for you using products that do not cool your car anywhere near as efficiently as R-12. No longer will you be able to go to Sears and buy a pack of four 100 watt light bulbs for three and a quarter, rather you will have to spend seven or eight dollars for one harsh, RF noisy mercury bomb that if it gets shattered in your home, you have (according to the EPA) to rip out your carpet and replace it. (I have heard from our insurance broker that the insurance industry would love to be able to go into your home and do a Hg vapor test before they write a homeowner's policy. If you fail, guess what... your carpet comes out or you get no insurance.) Or, you can spend 40 dollars for an LED monstrosity that will last two years and will give folks like me a literal headache as well as the PIA headache of having to use them.
It would be nice to think that there was a truly neutral scientific community in this or any other country, but big science depends on big money and big (corporate) government, so therein will be the loyalties of big science.
Best,
Joe
My experience doing this was perfectly reasonable. I spent $30-50, got a kit with the new stuff in it, and dealt with my old car AC just fine. It had a leak, I fixed it, bought the kit and the air blows really cold. Not a worry. Does it blow as cold as the old stuff did? I don't know. Really cold is cold enough for me.
My last pack of 5 60 watt CFL bulbs was $4, and I got 100 watt (equivalent) ones in the same number for like $6. (wal-mart) And I have to tell you those higher powered CFL bulbs are bright!
This isn't to say I think it's all better. Just different, and not as much different as I often read about, that's all.
Maybe. Environments are expensive things. I don't think all of the attempts to preserve them have gone well, but I do absolutely believe in those attempts because some of them do well. Some parts of the world don't care so much. I live in one that does and it's been very interesting. The conflict between optimal cost / labor and environment has been constant, but you know what? So has the quality environment here. That's worth a lot to me frankly.
I would suggest taking a hard look at the new options. So far my experience has been favorable, other than needing to do that work.
Heater, you ask good questions. The end-to-end assessments I've seen summarized suggest that the balance is heading in the right direction. I haven't pored over the details, and I suspect you haven't either or you would be making more specific statements, but when I see agreement that is so broadly based across many nations, I'm inclined to think that the homework has been done. As for engineering, do you honestly believe that no engineers have done the work you are suggesting? That with all the emotions and money at stake that no one at any of the companies that are having their products banned has bothered to try to shoot holes in the claims? That seems unlikely. Unlike some posters here, I don't have a problem with changing. I don't have a problem with the quality of light from CFLs and in my opinion an incandescent is basically a resistive heater that produces a few lumens of rather horrible orange light that we've all had to get used to. A typical incandescent has a color temperature only about half of the sunlight our eyes work best with and also produces a lot of infrared that we can't even see but have to deal with. And you would defend such a thing from an engineering standpoint? They are cheap to buy, there's no denying that. At one level staying where we are seems cheaper, but continuing to burn more and more power requires more and more power plants to be built, and they are anything but cheap. Our local utility, in its infinitesimal wisdom, managed to destroy a perfectly good nuke plant while trying to upgrade it, and now we are going to be saddled not only with decommissioning costs but if we can't get demand down, also with finding a replacement source. The costs to produce power have to be included in those end-to-end assessments you want and if someone has done one and concluded that building more plants to run inefficient lighting is the cost-effective solution, I haven't heard about it.
Bob
You are right. Our science is far from it. Indeed, our science is horrible. I do not care what anyone believes. I do care about the fact that without the stash of incandescent lamps that I have, and without the friends that I have in China and Mexico who are willing to send me light bulbs if ever I need any, I would be forced to use what you consider to be the appropriate thing to use. Mind you, if you like CFLs then by all means use them. I would be the first to stand up for your right to use them. If you wish to inject thimerosal into your children's bodies, then please, go right ahead. I refused to allow the medical industry do that, rather I insisted upon Hg free vaccines for my kiddos. Now all but one are in very good universities and have a good future ahead of them. (The one that isn't got hooked up with a no-good, got on drugs, procreated and well the rest is history. My spouse and I are raising their kids...) Their developing nervous systems were not assaulted by Hg. Neither were they damaged by fluorides... My water comes from a deep well and I spent a good deal of money on a whole house RO system to keep the natural fluorides out of the water. They used mint flavored baking soda tooth powder that was popular when I was a kid and have no more dental problems than those kids who use fluoride toothpaste.
Are you really that concerned with power generation? If so, please go get a solar system and sell your surplus power back to the grid. Someday, I will do likewise. Those systems are expensive, but the manufacturers have gotten them to the point where they actually work, and it will lower your electric bill. I would love to have a wind turbine on my property, but the wind is not consistent here, and I do not have a spare million five to purchase one. If I went in on one with the local power coop, I would have to sign over a lot of control of my property, which I am unwilling to do. We as a nation need nuke, coal, gas, wind, solar, biomass and any other energy generation schemes available. We could sorely use a cellulosic fermentation infrastructure, but I still would not do anything with my corn stover other than throw it back to the ground from wince it came. (I cut my corn stalks eleven inches... helps soil conservation, moisture and snow retention and they actually decay faster for next spring when I drill seed).
The whole point of my philosophy is this... you do what you feel is right for you, and let me do what I feel is right for me. I will neither dictate to you what you do in deed or in belief, but give me the same courtesy. And besides, CFLs stink.
One last thing... NASA's first director was a former NAZI SS officer. AN SS OFFICER! I normally do not believe in guilt by association, but the SS was not known for their love of the truth nor their love of humanity. Need I say more?
Best,
Joe
I've been monitoring this thread and am a tad bit nervous that it will devolve into an argument unsuitable for this Parallax site.
So I would ask that everyone stay mindful of the Forum Guidelines.
If you require a refresher, go here: http://forums.parallax.com/showthread.php/134682-Forum-Guidelines
Bob
I also gave up on shaving cream and just use the hair shampoo as a shaving soap. Between the two, the cost is phenominally less. I am just imagining at some point, the changeover to a new light bulb is going to require replacement with a complete new set of light fixtures for all buildings. Therein lies the greedy bonanza for electricians and manufacturers.
The simple fact is that the more I observe business in action compared to economics in theory, I feel we are just trending toward more cost for less value content with synthetic crisises driving changeovers.
I did say in my opening post "4) I don't want to get into politics".
All I wanted was some pointers to data regarding total lifetime energy consumption and environmental impact of LEDs/CFLs vs filament lamps.
Plus, well, just a sad good bye to the filament, aka heater.
If we can't discuss the humble light bulb without getting into a serious political debate we might as well pull he plug on this thread now.
I'm replacing all the fixtures in my house. Now if the power goes out, the lights will stay on. For weeks! Never needs replacing, so they say.
That is the actually the problem Heater, politicians HAVE injected politics into something a simple as the light bulb.
I see we already have a US Senator injecting himself into the late deliveries by UPS.
If politicians decide to make policy on every topic under the sun we have to discuss politics or we can discuss nothing at all.
C.W.
All of life is politics. Humans are social animals that only survive by cooperating and working together, that is all politics and always has been.
What distresses me is that it seems to be impossible to discuss any such topic without getting in to a partisan mud slinging. Democrat vs Republican, socialist vs conservative, communist vs capitalist. Before you know it it's all devolved into name calling and Goodwin's Law is invoked with the mention of Hitler and Nazzis. Great job guys. Not.
Sure libertarians want their freedom to use whatever devices they like and consume whatever resources they can afford. Scratch "libertarians" we all want such freedoms. On the other hand if your activity is causing harm to others, creating pollution or wasting resources then society want's the freedom to stop you. Quite rightly so.
It's all about a balance between the freedom of the individual and the well being of the rest of society.
We as engineers, scientists or just technically savvy hobbyists should be able to discuss these issues from a technical, measurable perspective not knee jerk political preferences. We should be concerned with facts and figures as best we can ascertain them. There is a reality in this huge and complex world that we have a responsibility to tease out and show to society.
At the end of the day reality wins, like it or not, no matter what your politics are.
Perhaps it's hopeless, perhaps I'm expecting too much.
The fact that the afore mentioned engineers, scientists or just technically savvy hobbyists cannot discuss these issues on their technical forums in a rational way is a great loss I believe.
Well, a dear friend has a niece that was employed until last year by Taiwan's largest LED replacement bulb maker. Her niece quit a marketing job there as the return rate for early failure was trending at about 90%. Hopefully someone has gotten further along in development. The bulbs are expensive and claim considerable longer life than the usual incadescent.
I can't get really excited about a DC world when transformers are so handy at changing AC voltage, have better efficiency, and provide a nice isolation from serious shock hazard.
Best,
Joe
Heater has the right approach. Let's talk about options and what they mean.
The end of the heater... like I mentioned earlier, I am not too worried over it. I do think some of the problem points mentioned may warrant exemptions. If markets really do continue to favor the "heaters", we may well see innovators do that anyway, despite the ban on the classic design. That opportunity may exist, or it may fade as most people really don't care as much as we may think and the new options are rapidly adopted.
Look at the Windows 8 mess. That's a forced deal if I ever saw one. The vast majority aren't adopting well enough to see the push succeed. Options are being considered now that better align with what people want and need to do.
In the case of the bulbs, we've got law in there regulating the market. In the case of Win 8, we've got a monopoly player attempting to regulate the market. In both cases we may well see pretty great options arise out of the attempts. That is my hope.
As for politics, Heater has it right there too. Everything is political. The key is to avoid the usual partisan mess and frame the politics in terms of technical realities. A discussion on tech and it's environmental impact is laced with politics. However, that same discussion can educate us as to where the costs, risks, technology and potential solutions are too. Which, in turn, impacts the politics by promoting reality and discouraging rhetoric and self-interest. Lots of ways to get at the nature of things without getting personal over it, IMHO.
Oh, here's a funny memory this discussion triggered.
My grandfather had stocked up on carbon cyanide crystals for killing ants. Where he lived in Denver there were way too many ants. When I was growing up, I would marvel at the huge ant-hills that would form in his back yard. One of those was tolerated for years over in the corner. I don't know why, but it was. The others were not tolerated at all, and Grandpaw had the perfect solution1
He would get a few cans of this stuff out, and pour concentric circles around the hill, starting a few feet away, couple inches apart and continue until he filled the entrance to the hill with them, finally placing something like an apple over the hole. Of course, the ants would call for an all hands on deck to clear that apple, and they would all die due to the crystals. All in all, the whole event would take a few days.
Then they were declared a very significant health risk. He ranted on this for weeks! Funny thing too, he said that properly handled the stuff was no worry. Now I watched him sweep up the ants, crystals, etc.. and deposit those into the garbage can and away it went.
Many years later, when we went to move them from Denver to Oregon, I found the stash of all stashes. Wish I had taken a photo. Turns out, he bought a more or less lifetime supply! Before the new home owners moved in, I used them one last time to get rid of the tolerated ant-hill, and they were still quite potent. Took two days, same method, same results. The warning on the can? Do not eat and do not store inside, or something to that effect. I used gloves, and the room where he had this stuff was in the basement, along with a pile of other nasty chemicals from the 30's to the 60's. Real scary stuff he stashed. Probably that room is toxic still, and you just know it had lead paint too.
We called to figure out how to dispose of the stash. I only used a couple of cans out of so many I can't remember. The guy on the phone was like, "You have HOW MUCH of WHAT???", "Yeah, he stashed 'em", "We will be right over!" and a team took them away shaking their heads...
Seems those things were dangerous and when wet, the bad chemicals would leech into the ground, etc... not good. Of course, Grandpaw would moan over those "New Fangled" chemicals and how they do this and that...
Not sure what the moral of the story is. Well, one is that change can be hard. Another is there are trade-offs. Still another is progress sometimes cannot be seen for what it is, and it sometimes isn't a move forward, just somewhere else...
So it will be with these bulbs, I suspect.
I just think the market place should drive the change over to better light devices rather than government mandates that are likely lobbied by special interests. I really can't see why I have to order a razor and razor blades from outside Taiwan as the current stuff is neither as good for shaving or good for the environment, and cost a bundle more to use.
There are obvious forces in play that decide what a regional market can and should have.. without concern for the enduser wanting to participate in what is really the best choice.
Being accosted on some many fronts about so many things that I can no longer use is getting a bit annoying.
Recycling was supposed to benefit the environment, but as near as I can tell the automotive industry has happily made it the mechanism to remove 2nd hand parts from salvage and to press people to buy new cars sooner. Less service jobs for mechanics keeping older cars on the road.. and so forth.
Supermarkets are supposed to be more cost effective for groceries, but meat and fish were fresher and safer when purchased from a butcher. Now items are mass processed, frozen and set out under plastic wrap so that one cannot easily tell how fresh (except for the date stamp).
People are less and less in a position to sort out things and decide for themselves. We just read the news and hope someone has gotten things right this time.
I have doubts.. Butchers used to grind an order of hamburger right in front of you as that was the safest way to assure freshness. The grinder was broken down and cleaned every day. The bacteria count goes way up when you mince meat as tons of air are introduced into the mix. Leave in in plastic wrap in a cold case is just not as good a solution. This is just one example of 'modern progress'.